Historic Churches 2023

BCD SPECIAL REPORT ON H ISTOR I C CHURCHE S 30th ANNUAL ED ITION 19 under any other enactment or any rule of law relating to churches, must have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission. 2 Experience suggests that this duty often goes unheeded: statutory consultees typically focus on the conventional criteria of architectural and historic value with little engagement with such forms of communal value, as the duty, and indeed Historic England’s Conservation Principles, demands.3 One unique aspect of the faculty system is that in more contested cases the decisions are recorded in written legal judgments, which are publicly available.4 These are accessibly written, often recording the arguments in the case, and together forming an invaluable resource. They also help satisfy the exemption requirement for openness and transparency. The Faculty Jurisdiction Rules is a work in progress, with revisions in 2013, 2015, 2019 and 2022. Perhaps the most significant change was the definition, as part of a simplification process in 2015, of two categories of work that do not require a faculty. First, List A, defines a wide range of de minimis works, mostly relating to repair and maintenance but also including other examples such as the installation of roof alarms and bird netting, none of which requires permission. Second, List B defines works that can be approved without a faculty by the archdeacon, on advice from the DAC. In practice, List B can cover substantial programmes of work such as extensive repointing. A second set of subtle changes has come about in response to the church’s concern to improve environmental sustainability. This includes a general requirement for churches to have due regard to the Church Buildings Council’s advice on net zero carbon. For example, until 2022 a fossil fuel boiler could be replaced like-for-like under List A, but now requires fuller justification and a faculty. Churches and their professional advisers should always liaise with the DAC to confirm what level of permission is required. APPLICATIONS UNDER THE FACULTY SYSTEM The 2012 appeal judgment over St Alkmund, Duffield now plays a central role in the faculty system, providing an established framework for guiding chancellors in their judgments and acting as a common point of reference for all parties.5 The core of this framework mirrors the secular system in balancing ‘harm’ to the significance of the building against public benefit, which explicitly includes questions of worship and mission. The assessment of those questions of harm and benefit depends on the respective statements of significance and needs submitted with the application. These documents are central to the process and are now routinely required in at least draft form before stakeholders will engage in pre-application discussions. The principle of early advice has become a staple of the secular planning system. Similarly, the guidance requires exempt denominations to allow, within their processes, for pre- application consultation with external stakeholders6. This specifically addresses the concern that churches may spend considerable funds on professional fees for unrealisable schemes, as, sadly, can happen. The duty on the applicant is to consult, but there is no requirement for consultees to respond, and with buildings of a lower grade listing or where the proposals are more modest, there may be no comment forthcoming. In more prominent cases, a site meeting with relevant stakeholders may be organised, with the church and its architect presenting the proposals and answering questions on the submitted documentation. Given that this consultation is rightly encouraged early in the process, refinement of the application may then be needed. For example, with consideration of further options, clarification of the justification or additional investigation of the significance of affected aspects of the building. Once the proposals are finalised and the application submitted there follows a 42-day period for formal consultation with stakeholders.7 Given the relatively generous period, late responses from statutory consultees can cause much frustration for applicants. In many respects the faculty system is at pains to mirror the secular system. In other ways it goes beyond it, for example in controlling works to non- listed buildings, to movable items within buildings and in affording objectors, including statutory consultees, the right of appeal. 1. HARM: Would the proposals harm the significance of the church (architectural or historic)? NO 2. ORDINARY PRESUMPTION ‘in favour of things as they stand’ START 5. BALANCE: Do the public benefits outweigh the harm? (NB Buildings listed Grade 1 or 2*) 4. BENEFIT How clear and convincing is the justification? 3. SERIOUSNESS How serious would the harm be? FACULTY GRANTED YES YES FACULTY NOT GRANTED NO The St Alkmund Process Simplified from para 87 of Re St Alkmund, Duffield (1 October 2013) The St Alkmund Process (from Buildings for Mission by Nigel Walter and Andrew Mottram, Canterbury Press, 2015)